David_Dublin
Registered User
- Messages
- 858
Because nobody will put as much research or work into your money as you yourself. Nobody cares as much as you yourself about your future.Why not ? Bonkers.ie does the leg work for utility and broadband providers. Why don't we have something similar for the largest investment decision many people are going to make in their lives ? Instead charges are cloaked in smoke and mirrors to protect vested interests (e.g. brokers) who are making a killing. Why is the average punter not being protected from sharks by the financial regulator ? Is our economy too small to allow transparency and fair pricing ?
I really struggle to understand how it is fair that trail income of .25% (or whatever) is earned for potentially 20+ years. You could be talking thousands of euro a year for what is essentially putting options to someone at a point in time and asking them to choose.
My understanding from my own advisor is that strictly speaking they can't even recommend what specific funds to invest in.
Generally it is not, it is a lifetime of ongoing advice, especially for retirees who are now spending their life savings and are no longer working. They like to know that they are financially ok and are not going to run out of money. I've had clients ring me to ask if it's alright if they can go on a long haul holiday, flying business class without ruining their plan or help out their kids with weddings/ house deposits.Generally the advice is for a one off decision. It's hard to understand how that doesn't translate into a fee for the advice, a one off fee. I really struggle to understand how it is fair that trail income of .25% (or whatever) is earned for potentially 20+ years. You could be talking thousands of euro a year for what is essentially putting options to someone at a point in time and asking them to choose. My understanding from my own advisor is that strictly speaking they can't even recommend what specific funds to invest in.
I believe it may have only become available after the latest post on this thread - but Royal London Ireland now offer an ARF with 100% allocation at an AMC of 0.35% if the value is over €100k and you invest in a range of nine passive BlackRock Funds (four equity, one property, three bonds and one cash).
This is very true. I have a number of relatively financially sophisticated and well-off retiree clients who are almost constantly in touch with their broker in relation to what I would term very basic budgeting decisions. My perception is that their dependence on their broker increases with age.Generally it is not, it is a lifetime of ongoing advice, especially for retirees who are now spending their life savings and are no longer working. They like to know that they are financially ok and are not going to run out of money. I've had clients ring me to ask if it's alright if they can go on a long haul holiday, flying business class without ruining their plan or help out their kids with weddings/ house deposits.
No, they don't.Does the Central Bank not impose obligations on brokers in terms of the ongoing suitability of products and changes to the client’s circumstances?
I've attached screenshots of the cheapest I've found after much searching. The fund AMC would be on top and I've attached a screenshot of the very limited selection of funds available at these rates.Coming late to this discussion on ARF charges.
It is very difficult to ascertain how much ARF holders are being charged, as I discovered when trying to compare my alternative approach to AE with government's current proposals.
For what it's worth, I assumed an average total cost of 1.5% a year for a typical AE retiree (i.e., someone with little or no knowledge of investments and a relatively small pot), made up of 0.9% for administration and asset management, 0.6% for investment advice (see p26 of this paper). I would appreciate if anyone could advise if I have over- or under-estimated what people are actually being charged (and remember the demographic we're talking about).
As is clear from the discussion on this thread, there's considerable confusion on what the costs are, even when the facts are known.
For clarity, I define the cost as the difference between the return on the underlying assets and the amount credited to the investor's account. Amounts charged outside the ARF must also be included, as should charges levied at the outset, e.g., initial commission (suitably amortised over an appropriate period, which in turn depends on whether funds are being moved between providers).
An example from my own experience shows the scale of the challenge.
Until the end of last year, I was being charged 0.615% a year (0.5% plus VAT) even though I made all the investment decisions. After much effort, I got a 35% reduction, to 0.4% a year (from another provider, with help from an adviser who had to be paid for his efforts - money well spent, I reckon). I'm told that that's about the best available, even for an ARF much bigger than what a typical AE investor would hope to have.
Even at that, there were additional costs. For example, if any of my ARF were invested in a mutual/ pooled fund (e.g., to get exposure to emerging market equities), the charges in that fund would have to be deducted. So too for the cost of buying and selling the underlying assets (which are completely hidden in a unit-linked fund) and margins in exchange rates when converting non-Euro assets to Euros for the purposes of taking an 'income' from the ARF. I've also found that there are all sorts of additional charges for investing in markets outside the 'usual', e.g., even for investing in other EU member states. All those costs must be taken into account.
Because I make my own investment decisions, I don't have a clue of adviser costs, but from what I see on this thread and elsewhere, they can vary enormously and can be either hidden or explicit.
Finally, it's worth remembering that a 1.5% charge on a 4% 'income' means that 37.5% of each withdrawal is disappearing in charges. A sobering thought.
Certainly seems on the high side.My wife's ARF annual charges are 1.25% and 1.45% on two NIA balanced funds. Frankly, I think that is on the high side and was surprised they were that high.
It would be great if there was a database showing the distribution of total charges (asset manager, life company/other provider, advisor) for ARF's of different amounts. Is there any prospect of such a database being established? Who could set it up? Presumably the CBI, the Pensions Authority, or similar?
Certainly seems on the high side.
For example Davy charge 0.9% + fund charges .
With a simple Vanguard Global Stock Fund (.18%)+fund portfolio transaction costs(.01%).
So all in for about 1.1%
A few years away yet but I'd like to know if there is scope to get the Davy charge lower for larger(€500k+) funds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?